Which Advanced Metric Should Bettors Use: KenPom or Sagarin?

Updated August 27, 2019

The KenPom and Sagarin rankings are both computer-based rankings systems which provide predictions for college basketball games. They are both highly influential amongst bettors, and the actual spreads used by sportsbooks tend to factor in their predictions.

Often KenPom and Sagarin agree on what is likely to happen in a game, but they also diverge significantly on a semi-regular basis.

When there is a discrepancy and the actual point spread lies somewhere in between, bettors can find value in siding with the more accurate model. But which is it?

Let’s get one important piece of information out of the way right from the jump: there is no magic formula for winning all your college basketball wagers. If you bet with any regularity, you are going to lose some of the time.

But history indicates that you can increase your chances of winning by utilizing the predictions systems available online.

What Are the KenPom and Sagarin Rankings?

KenPom and Sagarin are both math-based rankings systems, which provide a hierarchy for all 353 Division I basketball teams and predict the margin of victory for every game.

KenPom

The KenPom rankings are highly influential when it comes to betting on college basketball. In the words of creator Ken Pomeroy, “[t]he purpose of this system is to show how strong a team would be if it played tonight, independent of injuries or emotional factors.” Without going too far down the rabbit hole, his ranking system incorporates statistics like shooting percentage, margin of victory, and strength of schedule, ultimately calculating offensive, defensive, and overall “efficiency” numbers for all teams in Division I. Higher-ranked teams are predicted to beat lower-ranked teams on a neutral court. But the predictive part of the site — which you can effectively access here without a membership — also factors in home-court advantage, so KenPom will frequently predict that a lower-ranked team will win, depending on where the game is played.

In its younger days, KenPom created a windfall for basketball bettors. It was more accurate than the sportsbooks at predicting how a game would turn out and certain bettors caught on. Of course, it wasn’t long before the sportsbooks realized this and started using KenPom, themselves, when setting their odds.

These days, it’s uncommon to see a point spread at reputable college basketball betting sites that deviates from the KenPom predictions by more than a point or two, unless there’s a significant injury or suspension at play. More on that later.

Sagarin

The Sagarin rankings aim to do the same thing as the KenPom rankings, but use a different formula, one that doesn’t (appear to) factor in stats like shooting percentage (though the algorithm is proprietary and, thus, not entirely transparent).

The bottom of the Sagarin-rankings page (linked to above) lists the Division I basketball games for that day along with three different spreads, titled COMBO, ELO, and BLUE, which are based on three slightly different calculations.

UPDATE: The Sagarin Ratings have undergone some changes recently. All of the Sagarin predictions used as of the 2018-19 season are the “Rating” predictions, which is the new version of the “COMBO” predictions.

An Air Force and UNLV player reach for the ball.

How Can Bettors Use the KenPom & Sagarin Rankings?

Often, the KenPom and Sagarin predictions are closely aligned, but on busy college basketball days, bettors can almost always find one or two games that have significantly different predicted outcomes. When there is a significant difference between the KenPom spread and the Sagarin spread, sportsbooks tend to side with KenPom, but often shade their lines a littlein the other direction.

For instance, when Miami hosted Florida State on Jan. 7, 2018, KenPom had a predicted spread of Miami -3.5, Sagarin had a COMBO spread of Miami -0.08, and the line at Bovada closed at Miami -2.5. (The game ended in an 80-74 Miami win/cover.)

We saw something similar for the Arizona State at Utah game on the same day. KenPom had ASU -2; Sagarin had ASU -5.4; and the spread wound up being ASU -3.0. (The game ended in an 80-77 push.)

In a relatively small (but growing) sample size, our experience is that the KenPom rankings are more accurate in these situations. We are currently tracking (mostly) power-conference games from the 2018 season in which Sagarin and KenPom differ on the predicted outcome.

The full results/data are provided at the very bottom of this page. In brief, the results were as follows:

KenPom vs. Sagarin: Point-Spread Accuracy

On all games tracked, KenPom’s predicted outcome was closer to the actual outcome than Sagarin on 71 of 121 games. As a percentage …

KenPom was more accurate on ___ % of games

Sagarin was more accurate on ___ % of games

58.68%

41.32%

When the actualpoint spread fell somewhere in between the KenPom and Sagarin predictions, KenPom was more accurate on 35 of 62 games. As a percentage …

KenPom was more accurate on ___ % of games

Sagarin was more accurate on ___ % of games

56.45%

43.55%

However, when the actual point spread was either higher or lower than both the KenPom and Sagarin predictions, the actual spread was closer to the final outcome than both metrics on 35 of 64 games. As a percentage …

We are continuing to track games as the season progresses and will be updating these statistics, accordingly.

As mentioned, we are still looking at a small sample size, yet the advantage is significant and we can draw a couple of tentative conclusions:

KenPom is more accurate than Sagarin in terms of predicting margin-of-victory.

Barring injury/suspension considerations, when KenPom and Sagarin differ on predicted margin of victory, and the actual point spread lies somewhere in the middle, there is value in betting on the KenPom prediction.

When the actual point spread is higher or lower than both the Sagarin and KenPom predictions, our research indicates that the actual point spread tends to be closer to the final outcome. (This is likely because the odds-makers account for additional factors, like key absences, head-to-head history, and recent outcomes.)

What to Do in the Wake of Key Injuries?

One limitation of KenPom and Sagarin is that they do not, generally, account for injuries. When a star player goes down, the calculations for his team are not amended. KenPom and Sagarin both assume that the team taking the floor tomorrow will be the same as the team that took the floor last week and last month.

That’s not all bad news for bettors. While sportsbooks are very good at staying up-to-date with injury news and factoring it into their odds, they miss things from time to time, and they will not (immediately) have empirical evidence which they can use to adjust the spread. They, like bettors, will basically have to guess at how the loss of a star player will impact his team, and they are not always great at this.

In the first game of the 2017-18 SEC conference schedule, then no. 5 Texas A&M was traveling to Alabama to face a 9-3 Crimson Tide team. The Aggies had been hit hard by the injury bug and had recently played some closer-than-expected games. Finally starting to get a little healthier, they were small 1.5-point road favorites heading into Alabama. That spread matched up with the line at KenPom, which predicted a 72-70 Texas A&M win.

At least 16 or so hours before the game, word came down that leading scorer DJ Hogg would not suit up, along with third-leading scorer Admon Gilder. It’s unclear if the spread was set before news of the Hogg injury, but it is clear that you could still get Alabama as a 1.5-point home underdog for a while after the news came out.

Eventually, the line was adjusted to a pick’em game which, to most onlookers, still undervalued Alabama and overvalued the decimated Aggies. (I personally put a $50 wager on the Tide and laughed all the way to a 79-57 Alabama win.)

Another notable example comes from the 2017-18 Notre Dame team. When the Irish lost leading scorer Bonzie Colson late in 2017, sportsbooks initially shifted the spreads way too far towards Notre Dame’s opponents, predicting the apocalypse for the Irish. In their first game without Colson (against NC State), the KenPom prediction of ND -12 was slashed in half, yet Notre Dame romped to a 30-point win.

When they went to Syracuse next time out, the KenPom line of ND -1 turned into a 6.5-point spread in favor of the Orange. Again, the Irish covered with ease, winning 51-49 straight-up. Sportsbooks had no idea what the team was going to look like without its star and wound up overreacting. There was good reason to think the Irish would be significantly worse since Colson was not only their leading scorer (by a wide margin) but also their leading rebounder and only real interior presence.

However, there was also reason to think the Irish would be okay because Mike Bray teams are pretty much always ok.

Bettors won’t get to capitalize on situations like these every day. But if you pay attention to injury news and use the metrics available, you may be able to reap the rewards. Teams’ Twitter accounts are a good way to keep track of injury news, as are game previews on local blogs. National sites like CBS Sports and ESPN don’t have the resources to cover all 353 teams closely.

KenPom vs. Sagarin vs. Bovada: The Results

For complete transparency, below is the list of results we tracked when comparing the accuracy of KenPom and Sagarin versus the actual point-spread at Bovada and the final results.

2018-19 Season

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom; Bovada was more accurate than both.

TCU at Texas Tech (Jan. 28)

TT -5

TT -4.26

TT – 5.5

TT wins (84-65) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Baylor at Oklahoma (Jan. 28)

Okla. -7

Okla. -6.77

Okla. -5.5

Baylor wins (77-47) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom; Bovada was more accurate than both.

MD Eastern Shore at Howard (Jan. 28)

Howard -15

Howard -11.85

Howard -13.5

Howard wins (72-57) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada; Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

NC Central at Savannah St (Jan. 28)

NCCU -3

NCCU -4.78

NCCU -2.5

NC Central wins (82-78) and covers

KenPom and Sagarin were even; both were more accurate than Bovada.

Georgia at Arkansas (Jan. 29)

Ark. -7

Ark. -5.98

Ark. -7.5

Arkansas wins (70-60) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Tennessee at South Carolina (Jan. 29)

Tenn. -12

Tenn. -10.61

Tenn. -8.5

Tennessee wins (92-70) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

Pittsburgh at Clemson (Jan. 29)

Clem. -6

Clem. -7.46

Clem. -9.5

Clemson wins (82-69) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Kansas at Texas (Jan. 29)

Texas -1

Kansas -2.69

Texas -1.5

Texas wins (73-63) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Lipscomb at Liberty (Jan. 29)

Liberty -4

Liberty -0.02

Liberty -2.5

Lipscomb wins (79-59) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Ohio at No. Illinois (Jan. 29)

No. Ill. -9

No. Ill. -6.34

No. Ill. -4.5

No. Ill. wins (71-60) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

North Carolina at Ga. Tech (Jan. 29)

UNC -8

UNC -9.31

UNC -11.0

UNC wins (77-54) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Virginia at NC St. (Jan. 29)

UVA -10

UVA -7.23

UVA -7.5

Virginia wins (66-65 OT). NC St. covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Missouri St. at Valparaiso (Jan. 29)

Valpo. -1

Valpo. -2.46

Missouri St. -3.5

Missouri St. wins (55-54 OT). Valpo. covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Marquette at Butler (Jan. 30)

Butler -1

Marquette -0.34

Butler -2.5

Marquette wins) 76-58) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

Indiana at Rutgers (Jan. 30)

Indiana -2

Indiana – 4.94

Indiana -1.5

Rutgers wins (66-58) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Providence at Seton Hall (Jan. 30)

Seton Hall -5

Seton Hall -2.69

Seton Hall -4.5

Seton Hall wins (65-63). Providence covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Bovada was also more accurate than KenPom.

West Virginia at Iowa St. (Jan. 30)

Iowa St. -15

Iowa St. -11.17

Iowa St. -12.5

Iowa St. wins (93-68) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

St. John’s at Creighton (Jan. 30)

Creighton -5

Creighton – 3.66

Creighton -4.0

St. John’s wins (83-67) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Illinois at Minnesota (Jan. 30)

Minn. -6

Minn. -7.28

Minn. -6.5

Minnesota wins (86-75) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom & Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

UCLA at Wash. St. (Jan. 30)

UCLA -6

UCLA -7.13

UCLA -4.5

UCLA wins (87-67) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

USC at Washington (Jan. 30)

Wash. -9

Wash. -6.96

Wash. -7.0

Washington wins (75-62) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Iona at Marist (Jan. 31)

Iona -2

Iona -0.10

Iona -1.0

Marist wins (78-74) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

La. Monroe at Coastal Carolina (Jan. 31)

C.C. -4

C.C. -3.03

C.C. – 1.5

Coastal Carolina wins (92-81) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

So. Miss at Fla. Int. (Jan. 31)

So. Miss. -2

So. Miss. -0.05

Fla. Int -1.0

So. Miss. wins (89-73) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate Sagarin and Bovada. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

Temple at Houston (Jan. 31)

Houston -12

Houston -10.82

Houston -9.5

Houston wins (73-66). Temple covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Tulane at East Carolina (Jan. 31)

E. Car. -6

E. Car. -4.49

E. Car. -5.0

East Carolina wins (66-65). Tulane covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

UTEP at Marshall (Jan. 31)

Marshall -9

Marshall -10.40

Marshall -9.5

Marshall wins (91-86). UTEP covers.

KenPom was more accurate Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Tenn. Martin at Tenn. St. (Jan. 31)

Tenn. St -5

Tenn. St. -3.78

Tenn. St. -4.5

Tenn St. wins (68-67). Tenn. Martin covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

UConn at UCF (Jan. 31)

UFC -6

UCF – 7.93

UCF – 7.5

UCF wins (73-67). UConn covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

UMKC at New Mex. St. (Jan. 31)

NM St. -15

NM St. -18.77

NM St. -16.5

NM St. wins (70-54). UMKC covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Portland St. at Weber St.

Weber -12

Weber -10.68

Weber -9.0

Portland St. wins (76-75) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Pepperdine at Portland (Jan. 31)

Pepp. -7

Pepp. -5.39

Pepp. -4.5

Pepp. wins (83-58) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

Gonzaga at BYU (Jan. 31)

Gonzaga – 15

Gonzaga -13.49

Gonzaga -14.5

Gonzaga wins (93-63) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Penn at Cornell (Feb. 1)

Penn -4

Penn. -6.57

Penn. -6.0

Cornell wins (80-71) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

North Dakota at Western Ill. (Feb. 1)

W. Ill -5

W. Ill. -2.46

W. Ill – 3.0

N. Dak. wins (74-73) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Davidson at St. Bonaventure (Feb. 1)

Dav. -1

Dav. -3.08

Dav. -1.5

Davidson wins (75-66) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Michigan at Iowa (Feb. 1)

UM -4

UM -3.42

UM -5.5

Iowa wins (74-59) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

Colgate at Lehigh (Feb. 4)

Lehigh -4

Lehigh – 5.07

Lehigh -5.0

Colgate wins (84-62) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Fairfield at Siena (Feb. 4)

Siena -5

Siena – 3.97

Siena -4.5

Siena wins (61-5) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Marist at Canisius (Feb. 4)

Canisius -5

Canisius -6.11

Canisius -4.5

Marist wins (78-71 OT) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than both.

NC Cent. at Fla. A&M (Feb. 4)

Fla. A&M -4

Fla. A&M -1.17

Fla. A&M -2.0

Fla. A&M wins (73-57) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Savannah St. at MD East. Shore (Feb. 4)

Savannah St. -3

Savannah St. -0.92

Savannah St. -2.0

Savannah St. wins (68-63) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

S. Car. St. at Delaware St. (Feb. 4)

S. Car. St. -4

S. Car. St. -5.25

S. Car. St. -4.5

Delaware St. wins (70-68) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Penn St. at Northwestern (Feb. 4)

Northwestern -5

Northwestern -4.88

Northwestern -3.5

Penn St. wins (59-52) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Ala. A&M at Tex. Southern (Feb. 4)

Tex. Southern -18

Tex. Southern -16.54

Tex. Southern -17.5

Tex. Southern wins (84-74). Ala. A&M covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Ark. Pine Bluff at Jackson St. (Feb. 4)

Jackson St. -5

Jackson St. -3.27

Jackson St. -4.5

Jackson St. wins (65-52) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

Iowa St. at Oklahoma (Feb. 4)

Iowa St -2

Okla -0.33

Iowa St. -3.0

Iowa St. wins (74-73). Okla covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

West Virginia at Texas Tech (Feb. 4)

TT -13

TT -10.85

TT – 12.0

Texas Tech wins (80-51) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

S. Utah at Idaho St. (Feb. 4)

S. Utah -4

S. Utah -1.51

S. Utah -5.0

S. Utah wins (75-64) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Bowling Green at W. Mich. (Feb. 5)

B.G. -6

B.g. -3.14

B.G. -5.5

Bowling Green wins (85-72) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Drake at Loyola-Chicago (Feb. 5)

Loyola-Chi. -2

Loyola-Chi. -3.62

Loyola-Chi. -7.0

Loyola-Chi. wins (86-64) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Miami Oh. at Kent St. (Feb. 5)

Kent St. -3

Kent St. -4.42

Kent St. -4.0

Kent St. wins (70-67). Miami-Oh. covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Mich St. at Illinois (Feb. 5)

Mich St. -12

Mich St. -12.56

Mich St. -10.0

Illinois wins (79-74) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Pitt at Wake Forest (Feb. 5)

Pitt -5

Pitt -2.96

Pitt – 3.0

W.F. wins (78-76 OT) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

St. Joseph’s at La Salle (Feb. 5)

La Salle -2

St. Joe’s -0.82

La Salle -1.5

La Salle wins (83-69) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Ball St. at UNI (Feb. 5)

UNI -3

UNI -1.97

UNI -2.5

Ball St. wins (72-71) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Florida at Auburn (Feb. 5)

Auburn -7

Auburn -6.97

Auburn -8.0

Auburn wins (76-62) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Utah St. at Fresno St. (Feb. 5)

Utah St -1

Fresno St. -2.03

Utah St. -2.0

Utah St. wins (82-81). Fresno St. covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

San Diego St. at New Mexico (Feb. 5)

N.M -1

SD St. -1.25

SD St. -2.5

N.M. wins (83-70) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

Fordham at UMass (Feb. 6)

UMass -7

UMass-8.02

UMass -5.5

Fordham wins (85-67) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Kennesaw St. at Jacksonville (Feb. 6)

Jacksonville -13

Jacksonville -10.83

Jacksonville -11.5

Jacksonville wins (82-73). KST covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Lipscomb at North Fla. (Feb. 6)

Lipscomb -12

Lipscomb -9.66

Lipscomb -11.0

Lipscomb wins (92-55) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

New Hampshire at UMass-Lowell (Feb. 6)

UMass-Lowell -16

UMass-Lowell -11.30

UMass-Lowell -13.5

UMass-Lowell wins (72-62). UNH covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Notre Dame at Miami (Feb. 6)

Miami -3

Miami -2.09

Miami -3.5

Miami wins (62-47) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Rhode Is. at Davidson (Feb. 6)

Davidson -6

Davidson -5.66

Davidson -5.0

Davidson wins (68-53) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

Texas A&M at Ole Miss (Feb. 6)

Ole Miss -11

Ole Miss -8.04

Ole Miss – 9.0

Ole Miss wins (75-71). A&M covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Georgetown at Providence (Feb. 6)

Providence -4

Providence -4.26

Providence -5.5

Georgetown wins (76-67) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

Bradley at UNI (Feb. 6)

UNI -5

UNI -3.93

UNI -4.5

Bradley wins (79-71) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Creighton at Villanova (Feb. 6)

Villanova -8

Villanova -9.77

Villanova -9.0

Villanova wins (66-59 OT). Creighton covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

SE Louisiana at Texas A&M C.C. (Feb. 6)

Texas A&M C.C. -5

Texas A&M C.C. -3.23

Texas A&M C.C. -3.5

SE Louisiana wins (64-58) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

So. Ill at Missouri St. (Feb. 6)

Missouri St. -3

Missouri St. -1.09

Missouri St. -4.5

Missouri St. (65-59) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin. Bovada was more accurate than both.

SFA at Houston Bapt.(Feb. 6)

Houston Bapt. -3

SFA -0.94

Houston Bapt. -1.5

SFA wins (79-77) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Georgia at Alabama (Feb. 6)

Alabama -9

Alabama -7.22

Alabama -8.0

Alabama wins (89-74) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Wisconsin at Minnesota (Feb. 6)

Wisconsin -4

Wisconsin -3.64

Wisconsin -2.5

Wisconsin wins (56-51) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Nevada at Colorado St. (Feb. 6)

Nevada -12

Nevada -14.20

Nevada -13.0

Nevada wins (98-82) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Kent St. at Akron (Feb. 8)

Akron -6

Akron -2.73

Akron -4.0

Akron wins (72-53) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Penn at Brown (Feb. 8)

Brown -3

Brown -0.01

Brown -1.0

Penn wins (92-82) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Cornell at Dartmouth (Feb. 8)

Dartmouth -7

Dartmouth -3.69

Dartmouth -3.5

Cornell wins (83-80) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Ga. Southern at UL Monroe (Feb. 8)

UL Monroe -1

Ga. Southern -0.40

PK

UL Monroe wins (88-79) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Ga. State at Louisiana (Feb. 8)

Ga. State -3

Ga. State -1.86

Louisiana -1.0

Louisiana wins (76-72) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Columbia at Harvard (Feb. 8)

Harvard -14

Harvard -13.97

Harvard -10.5

Harvard wins (98-96 OT). Columbia covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Bovada was more accurate than both.

Canisius at Rider (Feb. 8)

Rider -8

Rider -6.60

Rider -9.0

Canisius wins (81-80) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

St. Louis at St. Joseph’s (Feb. 8)

St. Louis -3

St. Louis -0.97

St. Louis -2.5

St. Joe’s wins (91-61) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Princeton at Yale (Feb. 8)

Yale -9

Yale -7.87

Yale -8.0

Yale wins (74-60) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada. Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

2017-18 Season

Matchup

KP Spread

Sag. Spread

Actual Spread

Outcome

Takeaway

Bucknell at Lafayette (Jan. 8)

Bucknell -7

Bucknell -9.5

Bucknell -11.0

Bucknell wins (80-75 OT), Lafayette covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was too high on Bucknell.

Jackson St. at Southern (Jan. 8)

Southern -6

Southern -5.12

Southern -7.0

Jackson State wins (65-61) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom; Bovada was too high on Jackson State.

Baylor at West Virginia (Jan. 9)

W.V. -8

W.V. -13.4

W.V. -9.5

West Virginia wins (57-54); Baylor covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was too high on WV.

Texas Tech at Oklahoma (Jan. 9)

T.T. -1

Okla. -2.2

Okla. -2.0

Okla. wins (75-65) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada (slightly); Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Butler at Creighton (Jan. 9)

Creighton -7

Creighton -6.4

Creighton -7.0

Creighton wins (85-74) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin.

Purdue at Michigan (Jan. 9)

Purdue -2

Purdue -2.4

Pur -2.0

Purdue wins (70-69); Michigan covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin.

Ole Miss at Auburn (Jan. 9)

Aub. -12

Aub. -17.0

Aub. -10.5

Auburn wins (85-70) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom; Bovada was too high on Ole Miss.

Dayton at Richmond (Jan. 9)

Dayton -1

Dayton -5.4

Dayton -2.5

Dayton wins (87-81) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom; Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Kansas at Iowa State (Jan. 9)

Kansas -9

Kansas -20

Kansas -16.0

Kansas wins (83-78); Iowa State covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada .

Syracuse at Virginia (Jan. 9)

Virginia -12

Virginia -15.75

Virginia -9.5

Virginia wins (68-61); Syracuse covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Duke at Pittsburgh (Jan. 10)

Duke -14

Duke -16.01

Duke -20.0

Duke wins (87-52) and covers

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Louisville at Florida State (Jan. 10)

FSU -6

FSU -9.82

FSU -6.0

Louisville wins (73-69) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; KenPom tied with Bovada .

OK State at Kansas State (Jan. 10)

Kansas State -5

Kansas State -5.99

Kansas State -3.0

Kansas State wins (86-82) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin.

Colorado at USC (Jan. 10)

USC -10

USC -8.69

USC -11.0

USC wins (70-58) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Va. Tech at Wake Forest (Jan. 10)

Wake -1

Va. Tech -2.43

Wake -2.0

Va. Tech wins (83-75) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom; both were more accurate than Bovada.

Duke at Miami (Jan. 15)

Duke -2

Duke -2.3

Duke -4.0

Duke wins (83-75) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Kansas at West Virginia (Jan. 15)

WV -3

WV -4.6

WV -5.5

Kansas wins (71-66) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada.

Illinois at Nebraska (Jan. 15)

Nebraska -5

Nebraska -7.74

Nebraska -4.5

Nebraska wins (64-63); Illinois covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

DePaul at Marquette (Jan. 15)

Marquette -10

Marquette -14.99

Marquette -9.5

Marquette wins (70-52) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Cincinnati at UCF (Jan. 16)

Cincinnati -6

Cincinnati -6.04

Cincinnati -7.5

Cincinnati wins (49-38) and covers.

Sagarin was slightly more accurate than KenPom; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Purdue at Wisconsin (Jan. 16)

Purdue -17

Purdue -23.04

Purdue -14.5

Purdue wins (78-50) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom; both metrics were more accurate than Bovada.

Clemson at North Carolina (Jan. 16)

UNC -6

UNC -5.06

UNC -7.5

UNC wins (87-79) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Oklahoma at Kansas State (Jan. 16)

Okla. -1

Okla. -4.73

Okla. -2.0

K-State wins (87-69) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada.

Kentucky at South Carolina (Jan. 16)

UK -3

UK -4.08

UK -1.5

So. Car. wins (76-68) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

SMU at Wichita State (Jan. 17)

Wich. St. -7.5

Wich. St. -13.01

Wich. St. -8.5

SMU wins (83-78) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada.

Auburn at Alabama (Jan. 17)

Auburn -1

Auburn -4.00

Auburn -2.0

Alabama wins (76-71) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada.

St. John’s at Xavier (Jan. 17)

Xavier -12

Xavier -14.73

Xavier -11.5

Xavier wins (88-82); St. John’s covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Iowa State at TCU (Jan. 17)

TCU -12

TCU -13.56

TCU -10.5

TCU wins (96-73) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom. Both were more accurate than Bovada.

Arizona St. at Stanford (Jan. 17)

ASU -5

ASU -8.20

ASU -3.5

Stanford wins (86-77) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Illinois at Wisconsin (Jan. 19)

Wisc. -4

Wisc. -5.41

Wisc. -4.5

Wisc. wins (75-50) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada; Bovada was more accurate that KenPom.

St. Bonaventure at Davidson (Jan. 19)

Dav. -4

St. Bon. -1.53

Dav. -5.0

Davidson wins (83-73) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Arizona at Wash. St. (Jan. 31)

Ari. -8

Ari. -10.50

Ari. -12.0

Arizona wins (100-72) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom; Bovada was more accurate than both.

LSU at Tennessee (Jan. 31)

Tenn. -11

Tenn.-12.28

Tenn. -9.5

Tennessee wins (84-61) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom; both were more accurate than Bovada.

Missouri at Alabama (Jan. 31)

Bama -3

Bama -3.52

Bama -5.5

Missouri wins (69-60) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; both were more accurate than Bovada.

Florida St. at Wake Forest (Jan. 31)

FSU -4

FSU -7.07

FSU -4.5

Wake wins (76-72) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada; Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Fairfield at Monmouth (Feb. 2)

Mon. -7

Mon. -6.78

Mon. -2.5

Fairfield wins (79-78) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Canisius at Marist (Feb. 2)

Can. -7

Can. -9.13

Can. -8.0

Canisius wins (73-67); Marist covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada; Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Harvard at Columbia (Feb. 2)

Pick’em

Harvard -3.10

Harvard -1.5

Columbia wins (83-76) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada; Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Illinois Chicago at Oakland (Feb. 2)

Oak. -9

Oak. -11.27

Oak. -8.0

Ill.-Chi. wins (79-73) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

Indiana at Rutgers (Feb. 5)

Rutgers -1

Indiana -0.88

Indiana -3.0

Indiana wins (65-43) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin; Bovada was more accurate than both.

West Virginia at Oklahoma (Feb. 5)

Okla. -1

Okla. -3.49

Okla. -3.0

W.V. wins (757-73) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada; Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Southern at Jackson St. (Feb. 5)

Jack. St -1

Jack. St -5.06

Jack. St -2.0

Southern wins (67-62) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada; Bovada was more accurate than Sagarin.

Colorado State at Air Force (Feb. 6)

Pick’em

Air Force -0.48

Air Force -2.5

Air Force wins (78-73) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom; Bovada was more accurate than both.

So. Car at Arkansas (Feb. 6)

Ark. -6

Ark. -8.96

Ark. -7.0

Ark.wins (81-65) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada; Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Missouri St. at Indiana St. (Feb. 6)

Ind. St. -3

Ind. St. -0.59

Ind. St. -1.5

Missouri St. wins (81-62) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada; Bovada was more accurate than KenPom.

Xavier at Butler (Feb. 6)

Butler -3

Xavier -0.54

Butler -3.5

Xavier wins (98-93) and covers.

Sagarin was more accurate than KenPom and Bovada; KenPom was more accurate than Bovada.

Tennessee at Kentucky (Feb. 6)

Tenn. -2

UK -0.47

UK -1.5

Tenn. wins (61-59) and covers.

KenPom was more accurate than Sagarin and Bovada; Sagarin was more accurate than Bovada.

Ready to Learn More?

Want to learn more about the best strategies you can use to your advantage when you’re betting on college basketball? Check out the rest of our guides on sports betting strategy; we cover the best sports betting strategies that apply to everything oddsmakers dish out lines on!

The handicapping and odds information (both sports and entertainment) found on SportsBettingDime.com is
strictly for entertainment purposes. Furthermore, the unique odds we produce in select news
articles are also for amusement, and are not available to be wagered on. We are not a sportsbook and
do not take any wagers. We do not endorse illegal online gambling. Please check the online
gambling regulations in your jurisdiction before placing any wagers with the betting sites advertised
on SportsBettingDime.com, as they do vary. SportsBettingDime.com does not target any individuals
under the age of 18. Using any of the information found at SportsBettingDime.com to violate any law or statute is
prohibited. SportsBettingDime.com is not supported by or linked to any professional, college or
university league, association, or team. For further guidelines please visit our
responsible online gambling page.
Terms & Conditions apply to all bonus offers advertised. Please visit sportsbook operators
for details.